'Super Size Me' Delivers an Entertaining Life-Changing Experience

Spurlock Alerts Americans of Obesity At the Hands of Fast Food Chains

By AMIR ALI SAID

I’m all for films that spawn change in the world. Morgan Spurlock's documentary, Super Size Me, does just that. Spurlock is the director and star of the film. In 2003, he was inspired by a news story that aired on thanksgiving. There were two girls who were filing a lawsuit against McDonald's claiming the food chain was the reason for their obesity. Seeing the news story and wanting to conduct his own experiment, Spurlock set out on a 30 day trial.

Spurlock decided to eat three McDonald's meals every day (and nothing else,) for 30 days. He gave himself one other rule, he had to take the "super-size" option whenever it was offered and never take it when not offered. The end result? Spurlock put his health at risk, gained 25 pounds, suffered from liver dysfunction and depression by the end of his 30 day experiment. In fact, it took him fourteen months to get back to his original weight. On camera you see the way Spurlock suffers because of his new way of eating and the mood swings he goes through almost every day.

Spurlock’s style of documentary is solid all around. When you watch the film your engaged immediately. One thing I like is the beginning of the film. I think Spurlock does a good job of setting up his experiment. He gives you a look into the fast food industry. The way he utilizes statistics to get his point across is clever. When Spurlock first appears on screen you’ve got an understanding of what the bigger picture at hand is. Right around the time Spurlock dives into the documentary and puts himself at risk you have an enhanced understanding. In a nutshell, Spurlock develops a true story as if it were fiction.

The editing tandem of Stela Georieva and Julie Bob Lombardi is a force to be reckoned with. To this day it doesn’t seem like they’ve been credited together before. But the collaboration between the two was superb. I think the editing played a huge role in making Super Size Me a success. If you just take a look at when Spurlock incorporated the creepy McDonald’s portraits you’d see how editing played a role. Even the part of Super Size Me when Spurlock journeys through the country is another great example. I'm not sure I've seen many films that have relied heavily on editing.

The impact that Super Size Me had is pivotal. The impact the McDonald's food had on Spurlock is memorable. But one thing that Spurlock was able to help come about was the complete phasing out of the "Super Size" option worldwide. Through all the times Spurlock was offered the "Super Size" option it certainly played a role in his health dwindling. But if you were to make a closer examination you'd realize that regular McDonald's food alone made the biggest impact.

Super Size Me also had an impact on society. The large sector of Americans that saw this film benefited a great deal. Spurlock's film made tons of people aware of what they'd been doing to their bodies, and in some cases their children. This film wasn't a big slanderous documentary on a big corporation. Instead, Super Size Me was about an ordinary guy who put himself at risk in order to prove a point to himself and the world. For that and reasons I've already stated, I tip my hat off to Morgan Spurlock.

When you watch Super Size Me you’ll laugh, be in a state of awe, and depending on how tough you are, may cry. Watching Spurlock suffer is something I’ve never seen caught on film. The nature of the way the film came about gives Super Size Me it's on richness. Documentaries already have their own texture before an event is taped. What I look for in a documentary is information and a degree of entertainment to help move the film along. I think this film conquers that task effortlessly. For that reason, Super Size Me is a four star film on every day.

'Tron' Sequel Hits the Mark

'Tron: Legacy' Delivers A Thrilling Part Two

By AMIR ALI SAID

Tron: Legacy is the story of Sam Flynn's one night virtual adventure. After his father Kevin Flynn, a virtual world designer, mysteriously disappears Sam tries to deal with feeling abandoned. In search of his father, Sam visits his father's old arcade shop and he examines a game called 'Tron'. Soon, Sam finds out the game doesn't take quarters. Pretty Odd Right? As Sam’s intuition and curiosity kicks in he finds himself plugged into the very world his father created. While there, Sam finds his father. Once Sam realizes the horrid nature of what this world has become, he and his father embark on a life-and-death trip back to the real world.

If there were anything that you'll immediately take away from this film, it would be the graphics. Most of the film was shot in 3D. Director of Tron Legacy, Joseph Kosinski and his grew used dual camera 3D using Pace Fusion Rigs like the cameras used on Avatar. But instead of using Sony F590 cameras, Kosinski says they used F35s. In his words, Kosinski made the decision because the F35 cameras "had a full 35mm sensor which gives you that beautiful cinematic shallow depth of field." In addition to the filming, much credit should be given to visual effects company, Digital Domain, who was contracted to work on the effects and animation. The amazing collaboration between the two created a 3D masterpiece.

The editing in Tron: Legacy has to be just as important as the visual effects. All praise is do to editor, James Haygood. Once you take a step into the virtual world of Tron: Legacy you've just taken a flight to somewhere big. The editing in the film just makes everything much more smoother and up-tempo. Through the first forty minutes of the film, editing doesn't make much of a visual impact. But once the film picks up and you’re dropped off inside this world you can clearly see the role editing plays in this film. Visual effects and editing made the whole film come to life and flourish like no other.

You can’t go wrong with actor Jeff Bridges. Throw in a couple more actors around him and you've got a world full of solid acting. In every scene Bridges makes everyone around him better. Garrett Hedlund, the lead character, Sam, delivered a solid performance. Olivia Wilde did wonders in her supporting role as Kevin's apprentice. Perhaps my only concern in regards to acting in the film is the scene with Michael Sheen at "The End of the Line Club." I thought that scene seemed staged, unnatural, and awkward. Besides that, the acting was on point.

The only major problem I find in Tron: Legacy is the running time. The film clocks in at just over 2 hours. Now I think the film must have been much longer before Haygood and Kosinski settled on the final cut. But, two hours and five felt a bit long. Bits and pieces from the beginning, middle, and the end could've been crafted better. There were scenes that should have been cut, which would’ve made the film shorter. I think that also would’ve resulted in a smoother, less lethargic ride in bits of the beginning and end.

Tron: Legacy is an entertaining sequel to the original classic. I came into the film only for the entertainment and to see how the sequel would turn out. I left the film with more than what I looked for. I also left with a newfound respect for everyone involved with the project. From the story development, down to the props and wardrobe, I was taken aback in a big way. My hats off to Joseph Kosinski and his team. They were able to construct a solid film, one that was both entertaining and faithful to the original Tron. Nonetheless, Tron: Legacy is a solid 3, 3.5 star film that’s worth the watch.

'Toy Story 3' Challenges Original For Top Animated Film Spot

Emotional Roller Coaster Ends Well, Best "Franchise Finale" Film Yet?

By AMIR ALI SAID

The Toy Story franchise is one of my favorites. The first installment of the Toy Story series was great. That movie single-handedly shaped my interests in animated films. Every animated film that I saw had to stand up against Toy Story. But who knew that Toy Story 3 would come out and I would be forced to rethink my animated film bar? I saw Toy Story 3 and I was surprised by my reaction to the film. Here's how I felt about Toy Story 3.

Toy Story 3's storyline was incredibly good. This film gets four stars based on the storyline alone. Andy's preparing for college and he hasn't found a place for his toys yet. Woody and Buzz gather the gang together and try to instill optimism amongst all the toys. But a mistake soon gut all of the toys of any hope they still had in them. Woody and the toys wind up in a daycare where all seems to be swell, until Woody leaves because he wants to go home. Led by Buzz, the toys soon realize everything isn't as great as they thought. In fact, you'll never expect what happens next.

Editing has to be the second most important aspect and feature to Toy Story 3, if not tied for first. The editing in Toy Story 3 made the second half of the film extremely sinister. The editing was very effective and gave off the feel of many dire situations that were impossible to get out of. Then what happened? Editing was able to get the toys out of trouble. In an animated film like Toy Story 3 I didn't think editing would matter as much as it did. There was a huge impact on the film thanks to editing and I think that was important.

Another part of the film that I didn't expect to matter was lighting. I mean come on, an animated film is already lit a certain way to the point where lighting doesn't play a role in the film. But in Toy Story 3 once again I was surprised by how much it mattered. The lighting in the film made the whole feel of Toy Story 3 cold and eery. Lighting also played a role in showing the drastic differences between the toy life in Andy's room, as opposed to the life at the daycare. I thought that contrast really helped better the film.

One thing that I liked about the acting in Toy Story 3 was the character Lotso (Ned Beatty). Wow. Man was that strawberry scented hug bear beyond creepy and mean. I don't think there could've been a better voice for Lotso. If anybody else was chosen I don't think the character would've been as scary, but nice at the same time. I also thought that the Chatter Telephone (Teddy Newton) was a great character to the film that made the whole story better. The voice and actions that the Chatter Telephone committed truly impressed me on a whole nother level. Nonetheless, the new voices in Toy Story 3 added to the already great cast.

Toy Story 3 was a great film. Not only did it challenge the original Toy Story but I think that there's a tie at the top of the animation food chain. Toy Story 3 is a four star movie. This film ran through all of my expectations and had me on an emotional roller coaster. I think most people had that same reaction because this film was great. This is probably the first franchise that I've seen where the franchise is rapped up so incredibly well. Nonetheless, Toy Story 3 is a must-see, too many things went right in this film for it to be overlooked.

'Zombieland,' Horror Spoofs Done Right

Storyline, Acting and Cinematography Come Together For Solid Three Star Film

By Amir Ali Said

Since Zombieland was in the theaters last year, I wanted to see it. I had just seen Adventureland at home on the Starz channel and after the movie ended I noticed Zombieland was going to air in a couple of weeks. I decided that I'd commit that date to memory and watch it the night Zombieland premiered. To no avail. I even placed Zombieland in my instant queue and past it over numerous times. But Thursday morning, I was finally able to catch Zombieland on one of the Starz channels. Here's a breakdown of the film.

In a world full of zombies that have spread across America, four people find each other and try to survive. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) who's survived by following his thirty rules finds Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) in Columbus, Ohio. Once the two find each other they decide to head to Florida, on their way there they run into two girls, one who appears to be bitten by a zombie. However, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) aren't as helpless as they look. All in all, after a couple thefts here in there, the four realize they're all the family they've got in Zombieland.

The storyline in Zombieland is rather sad and hopeless, but the twist that this film is a comedy is funny in itself. Making fun of the whole situation is actually funny. I think if the film was a gory horror picture nothing in Zombieland would've worked. Plus, all of the actors would have to be scrapped. This film had a storyline that could only work with a lot of comedy and a hint of serious texture. I don't think anything should've been changed with the storyline, just a couple scenes could've been taken out and replaced by some more explanation of each character's background.

Editing was key in Zombieland. Not only was the film a comedy, it was also a horror film, and it had to portray such. I think Zombieland did a good job of showing this was a horror film through the editing and storyline. The editing in the film was rather quick during the zombie chasing scenes because, well, the zombies were chasing the characters. In every other scene, when the viewer was getting context on the characters, the editing was slow with a hint of hurried energy. The characters had some where to be, but they still had enough time to find out about each other, and I think that's where the editing was most effective.

Camera angles and lighting could make a case that they were just as effective as editing. Zombieland used a couple clever techniques that could only be executed by a few different camera angles. For example, whenever Columbus spoke of one of his rules, there would usually be an on screen rule that summarized everything he had to say. Most of the time he spoke of one of his rules their would be a wide shot that took up Columbus and the rule that appeared near his shoulder. I thought that was clever. Lighting was useful because most of the film was shot during the day, so I think a lot of natural light was used. The night scenes of course used lighting that was around the scene, like the very last scene.

Acting was on point. Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus was good casting. As a matter of fact, everybody was good casting from Eisenberg to the rising actresses, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin. Each one of these actors played their role and didn't try to outshine the next. Clearly, by storyline structure, Jesse Eisenberg was the star and everyone else were supporting roles. But everybody's energy meshed together to create a solid film that featured great acting, solid storyline, editing and cinematography.

After watching Zombieland I told Pop I thought the film was a solid two stars. Now, I think the film should get a boost, two and a half stars at least, because I think some aspects of the film make it three stars. Plus, I like all of the characters, and I also like the character names. Naming characters after their home city was a clever technique that worked. I think a lot can be learned from this film, especially the spoof genre. Nonetheless, with all of the aspects to the film I think it should be seen and studied.

Film Screening: 'Prom Night,' Horror At It's Best

80s Classic Flick Warrants More Exposure

By Amir Ali Said

Prom Night is a classic. Before seeing the 2008 version, I had no idea it was a remake. I had interest in seeing the earlier version with Jamie Lee Curtis. The 2008 version didn't do much justice. The film wasn't shot very well, and the storyline left room for error. Plus, at certain parts of the film I was at a lost. Oh yea, and the acting was horrible. In a horror film the characters need to have a little crumb of intelligence.

The storyline is simple, but it takes a twist most viewers will never catch. Prom Night is about a masked killer who haunts and kills four kids who are responsible for the accidental death of a child six years earlier at their senior prom. Who's the killer is the question at hand. The following question would be, what does Kim (Jamie Lee Curtis) have to do with it all? It's not for me to answer, but you to witness. This film will have you on the edge of your seat, and make sure you look out for clues to solve the twist.

Horror flicks are meant to scare you. They're meant to make you think and wonder what's the point of this film. Prom Night achieved all of those goals. Effective writing, acting, and cinematography helped the film along. It's a solid film. The fact that it was an 80s film shocked me. I thought it was early to mid 70s. Nonetheless, it didn't effect my thoughts on the film. I think Prom Night is up there with Carrie as one of my favorite horror films.

Prom Night is one of those films that I think has been overlooked. But I think the film would've benefited the film industry if it got more exposure. It certainly would've at least helped the horror genre get better. This film is certainly the definition, if not the pieces to the puzzle to a great horror film. I'd watch this film several times just to study certain aspects of the film. I think Prom Night can teach viewers about what a storyline should include. This film exceeded all of my expectations.

Four stars is just right. Prom Night earned it. This film should be seen, even though I don't think many people have watched it. Maybe a couple casual film watchers during the 80s, but I certainly don't think anybody watched this film recently. Horror isn't my thing, I'll watch it occasionally, but only films that I know. I don't like to watch horror films now because they usually feature dumb characters and bad acting. For some reason, I think great storyline and acting was lost when the horror torch was passed from the 70s and 80s, to the 90s and 2000s.

'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,' Underrated British Classic

One of the Best British Films Hasn't Gotten Much Exposure In the U.S., Plenty of Beneficial Material

By AMIR ALI SAID

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an underrated classic. Most people in America haven't seen the film. That's evident from the $3 million box office return domestically. This 1998 British crime drama tells the story of four friends. A brilliant idea falls into the lap of one of the friends, Eddy (Nick Moran), and they act quickly on the opportunity. A card game, with a lot of big names and money involved. There's only one hefty amount that they need to get into the game, 100,000 pounds. After debate and reluctancy the group pool money together. Of course not everybody will be playing in the game, only Eddy, the card expert will partake in this event. But all goes wrong, the card game is no where near what he expected. In fact, he's out of 500,000 pounds, with three days to get it back. He also happens to own a big time gangster, Harry 'The Hatchet'. What's there left to do?

I'll tell you what. A heist is inevitable. There's no other way to get 500,000 pounds within three days legally. But here's the problem. When this card game goes wrong, so does the rest of their world. A simple heist is in the works but way more parties are involved with the whole situation than anybody expected. Guns, gusto, and pride are all up for grabs as Tom (Jason Flemyng), Soap (Dexter Fletcher), Eddy, and Bacon (Jason Statham) struggle to stay alive. But then again, these aren't regular friends, they are close and witty. Nonetheless, the storyline has multiple layers that can't be described very easily. You've just got to see the film.

Guy Ritchie did a great job of managing and executing multiple layers of the storyline. I'm in awe by how well they were able to pull it off. Keep this in mind, there were about four or five parallel stories running throughout the film. I only want to state two since I don't want to ruin the experience. But the two stories (Eddy and Company, and Harry 'the Hatchet' and his crew). If those two stories alone were tackled in the film it still would've been splendid. But then two or three others were thrown as well? That's just an outstanding effort of management and execution. Who do you thank for this great storyline? The director, Guy Ritchie. That's every impressive. But here's a look into the acting found in the film.

This film sparked two acting careers, Jason Statham, and former International footballer turned actor, Vinnie Jones. These two actors collectively pushed their lives into a new light with the roles they played in the film. Statham himself was a semi-critical character in the film. In fact, I expected Nick Moran out of the four friends to go onto a prosperous career. However, Statham is the one on went on to do that. Jones also played a semi-critical role in the film. He was seen a lot, but his actual role wasn't too apparent. However, both Statham and Jones delivered solid performances. I also noticed how the characters seemed to react naturally to their peers and the action. I wonder if an editing career was spawned off of this film, because the editing was incredible.

Editing is essential when dealing with multiple layers to a storyline. Not only does the editing have to be near perfect. But the editing also has to maneuver through each piece of the storyline easily and effectively. Both of those tasks are hard because a slow or fast cut here or there could mean jagged editing. Which would then mean an unauthentic story. The story would be unauthentic because the parallel stories would no longer feel like they're going on at the same time. Instead, you would get the feel like one thing happens, and then the next thing happens, instead of one stream lined story with multiple layers. I think the lighting and cinematography was also able to help that along.

Lighting and cinematography may not have been noticed by many. But I think this combination was at one of the highest levels I've seen. The lighting gave the film a gritty and old feeling to the film. I think the lighting gave the impression that their was a film over the camera when shooting began. But I also liked the cinematography. The best shots were found towards the end and middle of the film. I really like how the crooked card game was shot. There were multiple shots of each player's reaction and the angles seemed like you were on a merry-go-round. Towards the end the shots portrayed mostly action and quick reactions. But all in all I found the cinematography and lighting to be one of the best aspects to the film. Plus, both of them enhanced the film and the experience.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an underrated film in America. In fact, when the film came out it only made $3 million domestically. Over the twelve years that the film has been out I still don't think many people have seen it. A $3 million box office return proves that. I'd go out on a limb and say only five hundred thousand to a million more people have seen the film since its release. Unless you study film or have an interest in Guy Ritchie or Jason Statham you wouldn't have any other reason to go out and look for the film. This isn't a film for everyone. But as far as directing, acting, editing, lighting, and cinematography goes this is one of the most exceptional films I've seen yet. There should be an incredible amount of people in the U.S. who have seen this film because I think it'll benefit many filmmakers. Needless to say, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is four stars. This is probably the best-underrated film I've seen.

Film Review: 'This Is Spinal Tap'

Parody Of Rock-Stars Had Me In Knots

By AMIR ALI SAID

In Film Review Class last week we screened This Is Spinal Tap. I saw the film when I was five years old. But its been ten years and I didn't remember much. At the time, I didn't have much appreciation for the film. In fact, I didn't even remember I saw the film until I shook up my memory a little bit. The film was funny to me then, but it was non-existent until this point. I looked forward to the next opportunity I would get to see the film. So when my teacher announced that we would be watching This Is Spinal Tap, I was ready.

This Is Spinal Tap is a mockumentary at it’s best. The film is a parody of numerous rock documentaries, and rock-bands alike. However, while watching the film you wouldn’t think for a second that this wasn’t real. You wouldn’t think that these obnoxiously dumb, yet funny, rock artists were fake. Instead, you would watch the film as if it was real and laugh along with the jokes delivered with straight faces. This Is Spinal Tap achieved a lot of things, one of which, accomplishing a successful documentary. That intended to be a mockumentary.

The whole concept of the story is ingenious. Rob Reiner, the director, and the rest of his cast, Christopher Guest, Michael Mckean, and Harry Shearer actually thought of every intricate detail of the story. The final product that they came up with was hilarious. The story was solid all around, from the names to the multiple names of the band. Then, the history of the band and each character. But above all, with many factors comes many challenges. But after seeing This Is Spinal Tap I’m not sure if I was able to see any problems. The story execution was second to none. There was a lot of story to manage and I think the film did it’s justice. But one more key component to the film is the acting.

This Is Spinal Tap couldn’t have just any actors. Eve Brandstein deserves credit as the brilliant casting director. But Christopher Guest, Michael Mckean, and Harry Shearer deserve all the props. Each one these actors delivered wonderful, funny performances in their respective roles. Especially, Christopher Guest. Guest really drove the film and his character came alive more than anybody else in the film. I was amazed at how Guest delivered some of the funniest lines in the film with such a straight poker face. But I do think that the supporting actors, and group members helped give a strong base to the film. Cinematography also gave the film it’s backbone.

The cinematography of a documentary can be very rocky and edgy. In This Is Spinal Tap I don’t think the essence of a documentary was lost at any moment. I got the grainy texture of the film that oozed this is a documentary. The cinematography really solidified the film as a hardcore rock-band documentary with funny tendencies and lines. Beyond anything else, I think the cinematography is what really made some people think the film was real. Besides working in tandem with the editing, the cinematography stood on it’s own two.

Editing played a significant role in This Is Spinal Tap as well. I think a lot of what went into the film had a lot to do with the editing and cinematography. But beyond that, the film truly deserves four stars. The documentary feel given off, the acting, cinematography, and editing make it hard to not give the film anything but four stars. Plus, it was groundbreaking and sort of controversial. Since some people thought it was real and others thought it was fake. It drew a line between documentaries and mockumentaries and changed film forever.

This is Spinal Tap is one of the funniest documentaries I’ve ever seen. The rockstars that make up Spinal Tap are some of the best musicians I’ve seen. The interviewer? He’s great as well. The crowds that fill the venues where Spinal Tap play, wonderful people. I wonder how much it costs to get into a Spinal Tap concert. I even wonder how many die hard fans the group has gotten over the years. I believe it’s time for a revamped, world-wide tour and reunion of the wonderful Spinal Tap. If only the rock-band was real.

Film Review: 'The Maltese Falcon'

Adaption Similar Of Classic Book Is Right On

By AMIR ALI SAID

Reading a story page by page, and seeing a story on screen are two different things. Both types of storytelling offer the viewer and reader multiple options. The book offers comprehension and prolonged storytelling. While the film delivers and caters to the eye and most importantly, the mind. That being said, The Maltese Falcon as a film and a book are two opposites. But like I've noticed over the past few years, films give stories a new light. As is the case with The Maltese Falcon, the film.

Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart), the sly, cool, and collected private eye detective is met with an urgent task of finding Miss Wonderly's sister (Mary Astor). But soon, her story's true colors come to light. Bogart's performance in the film is one of the best I've ever seen. Certainly, the best performance I've seen Bogart deliver. His range of tonal dialogue, and his facial expressions along with his charisma really are one of the best. In fact, he exhibited what I imagined Sam Spade to be. But the story itself did enough for me.

A couple things here or there were missing from the film, as opposed to the book. But that's understandable, because the film couldn't take up much time. But even without certain aspects to the stories, and a couple alters, I had no faults with the decisions. In fact, the ending in the film, leaning more towards a Hollywood ending was brilliant in my eyes. The book ended on a much more subtle note, while the film ended tipping on the drama side. But what brought me in the most, was the very last frame.

Now that I've read the book and seen the film I haven't been able to decide which one I think is better. I'm not even sure which side I'd tip towards yet. But I do know that Hammett's writing style, and Bogart's great acting performance shall have one last stand off. But right now, I can't make a decision because of the superb nature of them both. That being said, the film and the book are equally important to the preservation of themselves. They are both key to many films that can come out today because I believe they should be looked at across the globe. Dashiell Hammett and John Huston did a great job.

'The General,' Early Example Of A Great Comedy Drama

Long Line Of Silent Film Screening Set Off By Buster Keaton and Company

By Amir Ali Said

Before screening The General I'd only seen three other silent films. But each one of the silent films that I saw were short. I had mixed feelings on the short films that I saw. However, I'd have to say that the experience was worth it, and two of the short films I saw I actually liked. Especially the short films starring Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Nonetheless, The General was the first full-length silent film that I screened. Here's a breakdown of the film.

The General is about an engineer, Johnny (Buster Keaton), who tries to get save his train, 'The General,' after the Union steals it. When the Civil War comes around Johnny is forced to enroll in the army. However, his service is turned down after numerous attempts because he's better as an engineer. His wife, Annabelle (Marion Mack) refused to speak to him until he enlisted in the army. Too bad Johnny has nothing else to do, but then Annabelle is taken away along with 'The General' and he's thrust into action.

Storyline told through subtitles and action wasn't a new concept to me. If you think about it, most foreign films that are interpreted in English are the same way. I've been watching foreign films since I was three. Nonetheless, The General's storyline was interpreted very well. The storyline also had a solid foundation that I could follow easily. For The General being the first silent film I've seen, I was surprised by the level of execution of the storyline, as well as the storyline itself.

I was also surprised by the camera angles in The General. I'd like to key in on the scene where Johnny was on a train that appeared to be moving slowly down a railroad. What I noticed about the shot was how incredible wide the shot was. Then I noticed how the shot seemed like it kept zooming in and out showing Keaton's face and his almost inevitable fate that he never had to meet. Besides that, I think a lot of the shots in the film were utilized to give off huge amounts of slapstick laughter.

Editing was sort of in the backdrop of The General, but it still was a component to the film. Since this was a silent film, most of the time was spent with titles on black describing the upcoming scenes. There were also some scenes that seemed to dissolve into one another, which I thought was effective in getting certain parts of the storyline across. Lighting didn't play much of a role since the film was black and white and it was a silent film. However, most of the film was shot outside using natural light. Editing was more key to the film than lighting.

Silent Films is a whole nother ball game for me. But to start off with The General, a film considered to be one of the best films of all time, is a huge plus. The bonus is that I actually liked the film and I think it's a four star movie. I also think this film could be looked at and reviewed in many different classes discussing aspects of the film that may have been overlooked. I'm certainly going to go back and watch The General. After that, I'll move on to a long line of other full length silent films that I've scoped out. But for now, The General will suffice.

'Collateral' Superb Film; Acting, and Editing Still Under the Radar

2005 Oscar's Show Most Important Features Were Overlooked, Haven't Seen Any Change

By AMIR ALI SAID

One of my favorite films starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise is Collateral. A Los Angeles cab driver, Max, (Jamie Foxx) finds himself in a situation where he's a getaway driver for a hitman, Vincent (Tom Cruise). Max has two decisions that he has to make, save himself and the very last victim Vincent plans on going after. Max is just a cab driver so he has to be quick on his feet if he wants to stop a trained contract killer. Plus, there's an undercover cop on their tail, Fanning (Mark Ruffalo). The story doesn't stop there by the way.

Max is full of it. He's been a cab driver for about twelve years and he's be working as hard as he can to open a Limo service. On a Taxi driver's salary I suppose it'll take awhile. Vincent comes along and drops $600 on his lap for five different stops one night and Max is very enthusiastic. But after the first job he soon realizes he's doomed for the rest of his life. It's a race against time and Max can't seem to shake Vincent. But both Max and Vincent seem to be in some sort of game because the climatic moment they experience isn't anywhere near their expectations. As a viewer you might not see it coming either. If that isn't enough support of a good storyline I don't know what is.

The hitman narrative has been recycled for years. But I have yet to see a hit man flick besides Collateral that used the vehicle, literally and figuratively of a cab driver. I think that was a clever and innovative way of looking at the hitman tale. The rest of the story is engaging and easy to follow, however, you might not know what's going to happen frame by frame. The storyline also utilizes Cruise and Foxx as very important characters that actually become friends in an awkward way. But as the story unfolds Max finds himself and has a newfound boldness and courage inside him. The whole storyline was effective and then some. I'd have to say the same about the acting.

Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise are both very skilled actors. In Collateral they delivered one of the best performances of their careers. Foxx and Cruise are both a very powerful combination on screen. That's a fact that was proven on screen countless times. Foxx himself delivered a performance that earned him a supporting actor nod at the Oscars. His nomination was seen as an automatic win by many, but there was another film in contention. Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx and company produced a spectacular film with great acting but they didn't win best picture of the year, Crash did. But I believe Collateral should've been in the running. However, Collateral was nominated for best editing.

Jim Miller and Paul Rubell were nominated for best editing for Collateral. I'm not surprised. Collateral featured very good suspenseful, engaging, attention-grabbing editing. If anything supported the story more than acting it would've been the solid editing. During the whole film you could feel the presence of well thought out and planned editing. Usually when a team of two editors get together the final product turns out pretty well. That was the same case with Collateral. The only thing about the editing was that it apparently wasn't as good as the editing in Crash. But at least the cinematography wasn't out voted or outshined by Crash because neither were nominated.

The apparent cinematography gap that Crash and Collateral weren't nominated for seems just a tad odd. In both films I thought that they were worth nominations. Like I've said before, editing and cinematography almost always go hand in hand. In fact, with Collateral at times, the cinematography added a layer of doom. The first job that Vincent did where his work dropped on Max's cab was orchestrated very well. The scene towards the end when Vincent enters the building while Max is trying to find his way was shot very well. The whole story between Max and Vincent was shot in an incredible fashion. But I think this was overlooked by the Oscars.

I think because of the competition Collateral had to deal with in 2005 it was under the radar. At the Oscars I think the competition was even worse. That's why I think Collateral was overlooked for best picture, editing and actor. But even through all of that, the film still managed to make $101 million domestically, and another $116 million worldwide. That's $200,000,00 plus worldwide but I still think it could've made more. Collateral is a four star film featuring big name actors who performed very well. Then the editing and storyline are right there at the forefront as well. As far as under the radar films go, Collateral may be one of the best.